As world leaders head to Davos for the World Economic Forum, the need for a new approach to health security is clear. Japanese drug maker Shionogi warns that Europe must move from crisis‑driven reactions to long‑term preparedness. The bloc should treat pandemic threats and AMR as core security issues.
The European Commission’s Health Threat Prioritisation Assessment aligns with the sense of urgency. It flags fast‑moving respiratory viruses and AMR as major risks. It also shows that Europe still lacks early‑phase treatments and reliable access models. In this interview EU Perspectives, Jo Taylor of Shionogi explains what Europe must do next.
What does the European Commission’s Health Threat Prioritisation Assessment mean for pandemic preparedness in Europe?
The assessment marks a shift in how Europe views health security. It moves the conversation beyond crisis response and towards preparedness as a system challenge. By identifying the cross-border health threats most likely to affect Europe and assessing the availability of medical countermeasures for each, the assessment links risk with practical readiness. This helps policymakers understand not only what Europe should prepare for, but where existing tools may be insufficient.
The inclusion of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) alongside respiratory and contact-based viruses, such as coronaviruses, highlights a shared vulnerability. Europe is most exposed when effective treatments are limited, slow to deploy, or difficult to sustain. Preparedness, in this context, is as much about access and continuity as it is about detection. The next step is turning prioritisation into operational and financing commitments.
You might be interested
Europe has launched the Medical Countermeasures and Stockpiling Strategies alongside this assessment. What needs to happen next to turn prioritisation into real-world readiness?
The next step is turning prioritisation into operational and financing commitments. While the assessment clarifies risks, questions around delivery remain.
For both viral pandemics and antimicrobial resistance, Europe still needs procurement and access models that support readiness and continuity before a crisis hits. Rather than relying on ad hoc measures once demand spikes. Bridging this gap will be essential if prioritisation is to translate into real-world preparedness.
The report identifies respiratory viruses with pandemic potential as the highest priority for Europe. Does this reflect what industry sees as the most urgent risks?
Yes, fast-moving respiratory RNA viruses, such as influenza or coronaviruses, spread quickly and mutate easily, making them among the most likely drivers of future outbreaks. Over the past 25 years, events such as SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 have shown how rapidly these threats can take place in health systems and disrupt economies.
From an industry perspective, they also highlight early on where preparedness succeeds or fails, often before vaccines are available. This reinforces the need for complementary countermeasures that can be deployed immediately during day one of an outbreak. Such as oral broad-spectrum antivirals, to reduce spread, protect vulnerable populations and sustain healthcare capacity.
One of the assessment’s central messages is that, even for the highest-priority threats, medical countermeasures may be limited, slow to deploy, or unavailable. Where do you see the most critical gaps today?
The first 100 days of an outbreak are critical. Europe still has limited access to broadly effective treatments, including broad-spectrum antivirals, that can be deployed from the outset. A similar challenge is evident in AMR, where shrinking pipelines and fragile markets have reduced the availability of effective antibiotics.
In both cases, the issue is not scientific capability alone, but sustainability. Without predictable demand and long-term policy support, essential medicines can struggle to remain available when they are most needed.
The assessment shows that vaccines are essential but can take time to adapt, scale and distribute. What does that mean in practical terms for the first months of a future outbreak?
In the early phase of an outbreak, the priority is to limit spread, protect health systems and maintain societal functioning.
This depends on surveillance, diagnostics, public health measures and immediately deployable treatments, including broad-spectrum antivirals, which can be used during the critical window before vaccines are adapted, scaled and distributed. Preparedness is not only about having the right tools. It’s also about having the right tools available early enough to change outcomes.
Preparedness is as much about access and continuity as it is about detection. — Jo Taylor, Vice-President Corporate and Government Affairs, Shionogi
How well do current preparedness plans address the period between the emergence of a new threat and the availability of vaccines?
There is growing recognition that preparedness requires a portfolio of countermeasures. However, EU and national policy frameworks have historically placed greater emphasis on vaccines. They focused less on ensuring rapid access to therapeutics during the early phase of an outbreak. Initiatives such as the 100 Days Mission and Europe’s new Medical Countermeasures Strategy create an opportunity to broaden that essential approach.
What is the one commitment you would like to see In Davos next week to ensure the gaps identified in the assessment are actually closed?
We would like to see world leaders commit to treat pandemic preparedness and AMR as shared, long-term health security risks, and to invest accordingly. This includes putting in place procurement and access models that support the timely deployment of multiple countermeasures. While sustaining innovation across the healthcare ecosystem. Preparedness only works if effective treatments are ready before a crisis begins.
Closing these gaps is not about responding faster next time, it’s about ensuring Europe is never again caught without the tools it knows it needs.
